A New Mexico judge has largely thrown out Alec Baldwin's lawsuit accusing prosecutors of malicious prosecution over the fatal shooting on the set of the Western Rust, ruling that absolute immunity shields the prosecutors even if the allegations against them are true.
Judge Kea Riggs issued the ruling on Wednesday, according to a report by Australian Associated Press that cited a copy of the decision obtained by Variety. She wrote that the misconduct allegations paint a disturbing picture, but concluded that special prosecutor Kari Morrissey and the other prosecutors are entitled to prosecutorial immunity.
Baldwin, 68, was charged with involuntary manslaughter after a prop gun he was holding discharged in October 2021 and fatally shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. His trial ended in July 2024 when the judge dismissed the charge after finding that Morrissey had withheld evidence from the defense.
"very disturbing picture
— Judge Kea Riggs, describing the misconduct allegations
In January 2025, Baldwin filed a civil complaint against prosecutors, officials from the First Judicial District Attorney's Office, Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office personnel and the Santa Fe County Board of County Commissioners. He alleged malicious abuse of process, intentional spoliation of evidence, defamation and violations of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.
He claimed, among other things, that prosecutors gave false information to the grand jury, failed to disclose two firearms reports and filed an unlawful gun enhancement.
The suit was first dismissed by a state judge in 2025 after a long period of inactivity, then refiled.
How absolute immunity works
Absolute prosecutorial immunity protects prosecutors from civil liability for actions closely tied to their role in the judicial process, even when those actions are alleged to be improper. The rule exists so that prosecutors can do their jobs without fear of retaliatory lawsuits, and courts have long accepted that it will sometimes leave serious wrongs without a civil remedy.
Judge Riggs wrote in substance that the doctrine only has value if it applies in the hardest cases, including those involving allegations of gross misconduct.
The claims that survive
The state had moved to dismiss the case on immunity grounds but did not seek dismissal of two sets of allegations: those based on Morrissey's statements to the media, and those based on agreeing to log a cache of bullets under a separate case number, which functionally kept them from the defense. The judge said those claims survive at this stage.
Baldwin has also sued Santa Fe County and several sheriff's investigators under federal civil-rights law. The county has filed separate motions to dismiss those claims, and the judge had not ruled on them as of the AAP report.
Key points from the ruling
The decision narrows the case sharply but does not end it.
✓ Most claims against prosecutors were dismissed on absolute immunity grounds
✓ Claims tied to media statements and the logged bullets can proceed
✓ Federal civil-rights claims against the county and investigators are pending
✓ The 2024 criminal case was dismissed after evidence was withheld from the defense
The ruling does not change the 2024 dismissal of the manslaughter charge.
What Happens Next
With the immunity ruling issued, attention turns to the narrow claims that survived and to the separate motions pending over Baldwin's federal civil-rights claims.
Baldwin could appeal the immunity decision once the case reaches the stage where an appeal is permitted. The ruling is a reminder that even well-documented prosecutorial missteps often cannot be remedied through civil damages.
This report is based on an Australian Associated Press account of the ruling, which cited the decision as obtained by Variety. Allegations described are claims in court filings.
